No fine for Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner

Horrified at the slights and digs at Sir Keir Starmer here, a decent man, lacking in duplicity and an eminent lawyer. Versus the liar of no 10, a cheater and serial adulterer. One who made rules and broke them without any concern for the optics. One who didn’t. I know where my vote will go.

Casdon

And do you not think that as an eminent lawyer he would have made absolutely certain beforehand that he wasn’t breaking the law?

This is the point isn't it? And I believe that's what he actually did anyway.

I'm pretty sure that when he said he would resign if he was in breach of the rules at the time, he was confident because he knew damned well he hadn't broken them. He may be lots of things - boring, lacking in charisma, misguided in his belief that he can "make Brexit work", etc, etc, but - he isn't stupid. As a barrister, it's fairly obvious that he would make sure he wasn't breaking any law.

However, for many of his opponents, it will cut no ice and the decision by the Durham Constabulary will be seen as 'derelict'.

It would appear that Starmer has no skeletons in his cupboard, so the right wing media - and Johnson himself - will have to dredge up whatever they can find to smear him. Corbyn gave them plenty of ammunition, Starmer hasn't, and thus represents a real danger to the right wing vested interests.

DaisyAnne I am not prejudiced against Starmer as I made clear in my first post on the matter. My comment was about the rather ambivalent wording of the Police's statement. No need to be so exercised on the matter. ?

That is not "evidence" Elegran, although I appreciate it is the only "evidence" that Aveline has offered.

What Aveline seems to be saying is that she has seen this clip and that it reinforces her prejudice against Starmer. However, Aveline is not trained to take evidence. Neither, it appears, does she know the law.

At the time, the laws applying to gatherings included an exemption for those that were "reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election or a referendum”.

That is the wording of the law that the Durham police quoted. The description does not limit the type of work but describes it according to the test the police must use. They must decide whether this was a reasonably chosen action. In this case, as there were elections, it was.

There was no case. Neither the law or democracy can accept (to quote Isaac Asimove) that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". A short glimpse of someone drinking a beer does not outweigh the knowledge and expertise of senior police officers.

it was a legal situation as they were having after work powwow! and not gathering for a boozy night!

Aveline

If only I'd realised that was OK! Life could have been very different round here!

If you’d read the restrictions that were in place at that time you would have known Aveline. - think of the fun you missed out on by not knowing what you were allowed to do.

Just as a reminder, this is from the BBC website. If you look, you can also see what the rules were when the parties took place in Downing Street.

‘On 30 April, England was under "Step 2" rules, which had been introduced on 12 April.
Gathering indoors with people from outside your household or support bubble was against the law.
There was an exemption for "work purposes", although working from home was recommended in the guidance, but the rules did not mention socialising at work.
And there was an exemption if "the gathering is reasonably necessary for the purposes of campaigning in an election".
Bars, pubs and restaurants were allowed to open outdoors for groups of six people or two households, but indoor service was not allowed.
The question for police was whether Labour officials eating and drinking together was "reasonably necessary for work".

Do you not think that if there was any possible way the government could have pinned this on Keir Starmer they would have done - they wrote the rules after all, and have made many other attempts to smear him with no success. And do you not think that as an eminent lawyer he would have made absolutely certain beforehand that he wasn’t breaking the law? They don’t call him Captain Sensible for nothing. Whatever you think of him, he is not a fool, or a Bozo for that matter.

If only I'd realised that was OK! Life could have been very different round here!

Presumably critics don’t think that people should have worked beyond 10.00pm and gone without food? They weren’t at home to rustle up a meal, there was no option to eat in the hotel dining room, so they got a takeaway - where would you have eaten?

Many people like a beer with curry - it is an obvious pairing. Would you feel differently if he’d had Coke or water? Why? It was well after working hours, so even if he’d drunk a suitcase of the stuff it was his business.

I don’t understand the complaints, really.

A look at the evidence is always a good move. That looks like a pretty tame party to me. I would believe it is a few people eating a takeaway standing around an office after a day's work, rather than a "party", and a beer with a curry is not a booze-up. Not comparable with Johnson's do.

There is talk of restrictions being eased at the time this happened. The date is easily matched to the restrictions so there is no need for vehement opinions in a vacuum.

Here is the footage news.sky.com/video/beergate-footage-shows-starmer-drinking-beer-with-colleagues-during-campaigning-12606825

Aveline

Don't tell me what I saw. I saw the video of him taken through a window. Just Google it. It's not fake news. I think the police decision that it was only 'reasonably necessary' says a lot. I am entitled to feel cynical about the whole thing.

You are entitled to feel cynical only if you ignore the facts about the restrictions in place when it happened and the fact that there have been two police investigations. That’s generally called prejudice.

Don't tell me what I saw. I saw the video of him taken through a window. Just Google it. It's not fake news. I think the police decision that it was only 'reasonably necessary' says a lot. I am entitled to feel cynical about the whole thing.

Is there a link to the video please?

Aveline

'Reasonably necessary work'? Hmmm. I like Starmer but I saw the video of him at a party and drinking. Nice work if you can get it!

You did not see him at a party. You have just decided that was what it was. The police thought otherwise after they carried out a "thorough, detailed and proportionate" investigation. Presumably, you did the same before you libelled the police and the people involved. And you now have evidence that outweighs that seen by the police.

You saw people working late into the evening and then eating a meal which, had it been open, would have been eaten in the dining room of the hotel they were staying in, before they went to their rooms to continue their work ready for more canvassing in the morning.

No one investigated was fined because of what they ate or drank. Those fined attended illegal gatherings. The Durham meeting was perfectly legal, previously checked out by Starmer and his team to ensure it would be.

I appreciate that not having been able to whitewash the former Prime Minister, we are now seeing an attempt to paint all politicians with the same brush. I do wish GNHQ would be as diligent about fake news as they are about other posts.

Aveline

'Reasonably necessary work'? Hmmm. I like Starmer but I saw the video of him at a party and drinking. Nice work if you can get it!

Presumably you think then that he should have been fined?

Which would indicate that the Durham Constabulary didn't do their job properly or, worse, are corrupt.

There are others who think that he's been let off the hook whilst Johnson hasn't.

Maybe you, and they, should get together and make a formal complaint?

The video I saw showed him and others wandering around what appeared to be some type of office, holding plates of food (presumably got from the kitchen) and having a drink - talking and bending over desks, etc. It looked more like an informal meeting than an actual party - but I couldn't really tell from the little I saw. When is a party not a party, or when is it a party?

Either he's guilty and been 'let off' or he's not. Your hmmm seems to imply you think it's the former. Just to be clear, I hold no brief for Starmer and will not be voting for his party.

If I'd been working all day with a group of people, it was 10pm at night and I was exhausted if a beer and a meal before returning to my hotel to send emails, then, if it was allowed under the current rules (which it was) then I would think I'd blooming well earned it. The police investigated this twice and found there to be no case to answer both times.

'Reasonably necessary work'? Hmmm. I like Starmer but I saw the video of him at a party and drinking. Nice work if you can get it!

For those who don't follow links (though this statement is quite short and to the point) here is the text in full.

Posted on Friday 8th July 2022

"Following the emergence of significant new information, an investigation was launched by Durham Constabulary into a gathering at the Miners’ Hall, in Redhills, Durham on 30th April 2021. That investigation has now concluded.

A substantial amount of documentary and witness evidence was obtained which identified the 17 participants and their activities during that gathering. Following the application of the evidential Full Code Test, it has been concluded that there is no case to answer for a contravention of the regulations, due to the application of an exception, namely reasonably necessary work.

Accordingly, Durham Constabulary will not be issuing any fixed penalty notices in respect of the gathering and no further action will be taken.

The investigation has been thorough, detailed and proportionate. The final evidence supplied by participants from the local constituency was returned to Durham Police on 5th July and analysed by investigators against all the evidence before the investigation was concluded on 8th July 2022.

In line with established national policing guidelines, we will not name or otherwise identify any of those present at the gathering, all of whom have been informed of the investigation outcome by their legal representatives.

CoolCoco

Well theres a difference between over 100 people and multiple parties /karioke/Abba themed/ boyb /leaving dos when such gatherings were not permitted, and a small group who were on the campaign trail having a curry and a beer before staying at an hotel at time when work gatherings were permitted. If you can't see that you are definitely being gaslit..

If you listen to the media folk, who spread this muck CoolCoco, they just throw mud in the hope some will stick. If they are fans of Johnson, with that level of perception of truth, they will lie about and malign anyone.

TwiceAsNice

Clearly not the same rules for every politician then! What a surprise?

Which rules you think were used for No 10 that were not applied to Durham TwiceasNice? If that's what your criptic remark is meant to mean. If not, perhaps you can explain for those of us not in the loop.

There will still be some people who are absolutely sure that Starmer is just as bad, if not worse than Johnson because the Daily Mail had "Beergate" splashed all over its front page for no less than 13 days!

We can confidently expect the proprietor/ editor of the Daily Mail to be rewarded in Johnson's resignation honours.

Mamie

It isn't a question of "no fine".
Forgive me for shouting but
THERE IS NO CASE TO ANSWER.

I agree, just quoting the headline. So much was made of the investigation when the rules had changed at the time anyway.

No rules broken.
No surprise there.
Starmer is an honest reliable politician.

The headlines should read NO RULES WERE BROKEN. There, I fixed it for you

Not only that Silverlinings but political parties were specifically exempt with certain conditions during campaigning. There were separate rules in place specifically for this. I don't understand why this wasn't more widely reported. All the info about the campaign rules was on the government's own website

Here, by the way, is the FULL statement from the Durham police.

www.durham.police.uk/News/News-Articles/2022/July/Durham-Constabulary-press-statement.aspx

It sounds like they have held the evidence against the rules and it was all in order.

And, TwiceAsNice YES, it was the same law across the whole country.